This article was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2022 and
2023.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
I wouldn't mind this just changing into a redirect on the very unlikely chance that this film is revived. I say unlikely because its in some Disney vault somewhere, which no one else has access to.
Historyday01 (
talk)
01:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I can see the merit in the article, but I also could see it just changing into a redirect to the Nimona page, then bringing the page back if the film is revived.
Historyday01 (
talk)
02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I would recommend against having a separate article because there is so little in this article that is not already in [[[Nimona]]. Excessive overlap is one of the main reasons for merging two articles, even if both would be notable on their own. Is an editor proposing to cut down the information on the film in the other article? Also bear in mind that the
Nimona article reached Good Article status without the GA review making any suggestion that the film should be spun off.
HenryCrun15 (
talk)
04:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Right, I agree. I personally don't want to cut down the information about the film in the Nimona article and would rather this article just become a redirect to the Nimona page.
Historyday01 (
talk)
05:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Animation365 (
talk)
13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)It's sad that Blue Sky Studios is closed on April 10, 2021 due to current "economic realities" related to COVID-19. It's up to me, Matthew Davidson to revive the film by writing and sending letters to 20th Century Animation to produce it in-house by using the 75% completed parts of the movie originally produced by Blue Sky Studios (uncredited).reply
As we all know, this film was recently revived. There's currently an
edit war going on RN on whether or not to still list 20th Century Animation and Blue Sky Studios as production companies, since, well, the production was started under them. What does everyone think? Should we still list them or not? Voice your comments here.
TheVHSArtist (
talk)
01:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Blue Sky is not credited as a studio in the film. The two references you mention are from 2017 and 2015 and are clearly outdated.
Barry Wom (
talk)
13:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
They should still be mentioned because they DID work on the film (and they WERE mentioned in the credits). Your recent edits don't help. The film was produced in two parts, one part before Disney cancelled it, and a second part AFTER it was revived, each by different studios. That should be easy to understand.
Historyday01 (
talk)
14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your
recent edit supports a hidden comment which never received any consensus. Please stop with your unnecessary edits. Just leave the production companies listed, without any changes, for now, until we can come to a consensus here. Any bold edits will help no one.
Historyday01 (
talk)
14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I am but the observer here. I didn't wish to get into any edit wars, I was simply pointing it out that it was revived. Also, one of the accounts you tagged is blocked indefinitely for constantly disruptive edits.
TheVHSArtist (
talk)
18:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The consensus was that Blue Sky should be included in the infobox until the film was released. Well, the film has now been released and the only studio credited is Annapurna. Blue Sky staff are indeed listed in the closing credits, but so are DNEG and we're not treating them as a production company either.
Hmm, I still am not sure, as they (Blue Sky, Fox and Vertigo) did work on the film, as production companies, so...it would make sense to keep them, I would think. A compromise could be to include a note stating that all three of these companies DID production work on the film before cancellation, but weren't credited in the final film. Here's a note I came up with:
If you want to point out that those companies were not credited in the released film despite their previous involvement, it should be done as an expansion to the Development section, not inserted into the infobox.
Barry Wom (
talk)
15:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't mind the development section being expanded, but I think a note would be helpful and could help avoid any future edit wars (or discussions) on this subject.
Historyday01 (
talk)
15:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Cree, unless the film comes out and their shown uncredited, then they should be removed. But until then, they should remain listed.
SlySabre (
talk)
19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
List only the credited companies in the infobox, and mention the others in a footnote. That's what's usually done when there is discrepancy between on-screen credits and actualities as reported by reliable sources.
Nardog (
talk)
05:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
My two cents are that if we have a sources, we can put it on the infobox. Generally the infobox shouldn't be the only thing we go by. Plenty of film articles put production companies that weren't listed in the infobox but have sources for.
IAmNMFlores (
talk)
19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It's extraordinarily easy to find negative reviews/feedback/etc, in regards to this film. Both at the time of release, and in the time sense. No, I'm not talking about complaints from people who are anti-LBGT, but simply reviews about the poor world building, poor scripting, changes from original story, etc.